That should have read, "McCain: 'I don't understand why the GOP would filibuster.'" Most of us sure don't understand why the GOP would filibuster 99% of what they freaking filibuster.

Well, actually we do. Their raison d'être is obstruction, their goal (other than acquiring more money and power, that is) is to tarnish President Obama and his legacy, and their appallingly gleeful reliance on perpetual blocking comes from the successes they've had.

I don’t understand it. The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.

Schieffer:

So you’d encourage Republicans not to filibuster?

McCain:

I would not only encourage it, I don’t understand it. What are we afraid of? ... Why would we not want... Why not take it up and amend it and debate? The American people would profit from it. I do not understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leader has said we can have amendments.

-- But Harry shook hands instead, although he has threatened to revisit filibuster reform from time to time, getting Democratic hopes up, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. We’ll believe it when we see it.

-- Of course you will, dear.

-- I will NOT get my hopes up, I will NOT get my hopes up…

-- That would be novel. Just do it already.

From the tweets and comments I received, we all had the same reaction. And for good reason.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the tools he needs to overcome any initial filibuster of a firearms background check bill, but he may not be inclined to use them.

Indeed, the Nevada Democrat is biding his time, even as President Barack Obama embarks on an aggressive new push for votes on a variety of gun-related measures, including background checks and a new prohibition on assault weapons.

The trouble for Reid is the new process — established in January through modest filibuster rules changes — may have a fatal flaw in practice when the Nevada Democrat actually wants the bill involved to become law.

And what might that fatal flaw be? Reid's New Rules do not prevent senators from blocking a bill from passing once it’s up for debate.

Did I mention that he still needs at least 60 votes? That he still needs a super majority? That real filibuster reform is still just a twinkle in sane and reasonable Democrats' eyes? And that Republicans despise compromise so much that they won't even use the word?

Harry Reid reminds me of those ineffectual, weary parents who you see in a public place repeatedly scolding his annoyingly obstinate, uncontrollable toddler, saying things like, "If you keep that up, you'll get punished." Then, "Just keep pushing, young man, and there will be no McFlurry dessert for you." Followed by, "I'm warning you."

And then does nothing.

And the kid keeps misbehaving.

In that scenario, Daddy Dearest was about as effective as Gene Wilder intended (not) to be as Willy Wonka:

Which brings us to the unprecedented use of the filibuster by the GOP, their favorite weapon, the one they've used to obstruct just about every proposal by President Obama and the Democrats... including judicial nominations.

Over the years, we've witnessed the Reagan/Bush conservative judicial trajectory and subsequent decline (see: Scalia, Antonin et al) of our judiciary, and as a result, our democracy, civil rights, and legal system. And since Obama took office, his judicial nominations have been moving at a glacial pace.

All that because Harry Reid insisted on that "gentleman’s agreement" with Mitch McConnell, the ridiculous handshake deal he made, saying he was "satisfied" with the Republicans just "agreeing" to be more reasonable. Remember that?

As you may recall, Jeff Merkley’s plan for reform would not have ended the filibuster, and the Dems would still be able to use the option to filibuster when they are the minority party. It would have taken more effort and transparency to voice opposition, but the filibuster would have remained intact.

But Harry shook hands instead, although he has threatened to revisit filibuster reform from time to time, getting Democratic hopes up, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. We'll believe it when we see it.

The Nevada Democrat said that while he was “happy” with the modest rules changes adopted in January on a bipartisan basis, the number of pending judicial nominations led him to warn his colleagues of the potential for the chamber’s rules to be modified at any point in the year, not just at the opening of a new Congress.

“All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary,” Reid said on Nevada Public Radio.

Of course you will, dear.

Harry:

"We made changes, but the time will tell whether they’re big enough. I’m going to wait and build a case. If the Republicans in the Senate don’t start approving some judges and don’t start helping get some of these nominations done, then we’re going to have to take more action.”

"Just keep pushing, young man, and there will be no McFlurry dessert for you."

But it does get more promising (I will NOT get my hopes up, I will NOT get my hopes up...). Reid said it's not only about judges, but also the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"Now, we have the Republican-dominated D.C. Court of Appeals who have said, look, the president can’t even do recess appointments now,” Reid said. “So, we’re left with few alternatives, and we’re going to have to move forward and do something to change that.”

Yes, we're going to have to do something. We've had to do something for years now.

“We have tried at the beginning of this Senate session to avoid this kind of filibuster confrontation. The last several years we have had over 400 filibusters — a record number of filibusters in the Senate... I hate to suggest this, but if this is an indication of where we’re headed, we need to revisit the rules again... We need to go back to it again. I’m sorry to say it because I was hopeful that a bipartisan approach to dealing with these issues would work.” [...]

“We had the first filibuster in history of a secretary of Defense nominee, the first... And now we follow with this filibuster of this D.C. Circuit nominee.I don’t think we’ve achieved much in our rules reform. I don’t think our spirit of bipartisanship has shown much in terms of results.”

Bingo. He's referring to the fact that Senate Republicans just filibustered the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She got 51 votes.

Ironically, that's exactly the kind of filibuster that has been proposed. Under Jeff Merkley’s plan for reform, the filibuster wouldn’t have ended and the Dems would still be able to use the option to filibuster when they are the minority party. It would have taken more effort and transparency to voice opposition, but the filibuster would have remained intact.